Liability of Joint Tortfeasors

Definition of Joint Tortfeasors

Definition of Joint Tortfeasors

Common intention or common action

Joint tortfeasors are two or more persons who are jointly responsible for the same tort. When their combined wrongful conduct causes a single, indivisible injury to the plaintiff, they are considered joint tortfeasors. The key element is that the plaintiff suffers one injury, which is the result of the actions of multiple defendants, making it impossible or impractical to separate the damage caused by each individual defendant.

There are generally three main ways in which persons can become joint tortfeasors:

1. Acting in concert or with a common design: This occurs when two or more individuals agree or plan together to commit a tort and act together to execute it. Their actions are pursuant to a common goal or plan, and the damage results from their joint execution of that plan.

Example: Two neighbours conspire to block a public pathway used by a third neighbour to access their property. Both participate in building the obstruction. They are joint tortfeasors acting with a common intention.

2. Acting independently but causing the same damage through a common action or purpose: While not having a prior agreement, their actions are directed towards a common end or are part of a shared enterprise, and these actions collectively cause the single damage. This is distinct from independent tortfeasors whose separate acts happen to cause damage, even if the damage is concurrent.

Example: Two individuals, without prior agreement, participate in forcefully evicting a tenant from a property on behalf of the landlord. Both physically remove belongings and obstruct the tenant's re-entry. Their independent acts serve the common purpose of eviction and cause a single injury (wrongful deprivation of possession and damage to property). They could be joint tortfeasors.

3. Vicarious Liability: This is the most common instance in modern law. It occurs when one person is held strictly liable for the tort committed by another, even though they did not commit the act themselves, due to a special relationship between them. The classic examples are employer-employee relationship (master and servant liability) or principal-agent relationship, where the employer/principal is liable for the torts committed by the employee/agent in the course of their employment/agency.

Example: A delivery driver (employee) negligently hits a pedestrian while on duty. The pedestrian suffers a broken leg. Both the driver and the employer are joint tortfeasors. The driver is liable for their direct negligence, and the employer is vicariously liable for the driver's negligence committed within the scope of employment. The injury is the single broken leg caused by the combined negligence (the employer's liability flows from the driver's act).

It's important to distinguish joint tortfeasors from independent tortfeasors. Independent tortfeasors commit separate tortious acts that happen to cause the same or overlapping damage. While they can be sued together, their liability might be several (meaning each is only liable for the damage they caused, if divisible) or joint and several (if the damage is indivisible, similar to joint tortfeasors, but arising from independent acts, a concept sometimes covered under "concurrent tortfeasors"). Joint tortfeasors, by contrast, are responsible for a single tortious act or series of acts done in concert or under vicarious liability leading to a single, indivisible damage.

Nature of Joint Liability

Nature of Joint Liability

Solidary liability

The primary characteristic of the liability of joint tortfeasors is that it is solidary or joint and several. This means that each joint tortfeasor is individually liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of the plaintiff's loss. The plaintiff has the right to sue one or more of the joint tortfeasors together or any one of them individually for the entire damage. The plaintiff is not required to apportion the blame or the damage between the joint tortfeasors when suing them.

If the plaintiff obtains a judgment against joint tortfeasors, they can enforce the judgment against any one of them to recover the full amount. For example, if there are two joint tortfeasors, T1 and T2, and the plaintiff is awarded ₹5,00,000 in damages, the plaintiff can recover the entire ₹5,00,000 from T1 alone, or from T2 alone, or partly from T1 and partly from T2, until the full amount is recovered. The plaintiff cannot, however, recover more than the total amount of the judgment from all of them combined.

This solidary liability benefits the plaintiff, as it increases the likelihood of recovering full compensation, especially if one of the tortfeasors is insolvent or has limited resources. The risk of one tortfeasor being unable to pay falls on the other tortfeasors, not on the innocent plaintiff.

Contribution between tortfeasors

While the plaintiff can recover the full amount from any one joint tortfeasor, that tortfeasor who has paid more than their "share" of the liability has a right to seek contribution from the other joint tortfeasors. This right prevents the burden of the plaintiff's loss from falling solely on the one tortfeasor who happened to be the target of the plaintiff's enforcement efforts.

The right to contribution between tortfeasors is not a common law right; it was introduced by statute. In England, this was achieved by the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, which provided that one tortfeasor could recover contribution from any other tortfeasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage. This principle is followed in India as well.

The amount of contribution that one tortfeasor can recover from another is determined by the court based on what is "just and equitable" having regard to the extent of the tortfeasor's responsibility for the damage. The court will assess the relative blameworthiness or causative potency of the actions of each tortfeasor.

Formulaic Representation (Conceptual):

If Tortfeasor T1 pays the full damages D, and the court determines that T1 was X% responsible and T2 was Y% responsible (where X + Y = 100%), T1 can claim contribution from T2 for the amount corresponding to T2's share of responsibility.

$ \text{Contribution from T2 to T1} = \text{Total Damages (D)} \times \text{T2's Percentage of Responsibility (Y%)} $

The right to contribution ensures that, while the plaintiff is fully compensated, the financial burden is ultimately shared among the joint tortfeasors in proportion to their respective degrees of fault.

Answer:

Release of One Tortfeasor

Release of One Tortfeasor

The effect of the plaintiff releasing one joint tortfeasor from liability needs careful consideration, as the historical common law rule was quite harsh.

Common Law Rule (Historical)

At common law, the release of one joint tortfeasor by the plaintiff automatically operated as a release of all other joint tortfeasors, even if the plaintiff intended otherwise. This was based on the idea that there was only one cause of action against the joint tortfeasors, and releasing one extinguished the single cause of action.

This rule was also considered very harsh, as a plaintiff might wish to settle with one tortfeasor (e.g., an employee) without intending to let the primary party (e.g., the employer) off the hook. To avoid this strict rule, plaintiffs would sometimes use a "covenant not to sue" one tortfeasor instead of a formal "release." A covenant not to sue one joint tortfeasor generally did not discharge the others.

Modern Position (Statutory/Judicial Reform)

Similar to the rule on contribution, the harsh common law rule regarding the effect of releasing one joint tortfeasor has been significantly altered by statute or judicial interpretation in most jurisdictions, including India. The principle is that a release granted to one joint tortfeasor does not automatically discharge the others. However, it may affect the amount recoverable from the remaining tortfeasors.

The general effect of a release or settlement with one joint tortfeasor under the modern approach is that:

1. The liability of the released tortfeasor to the plaintiff is extinguished, according to the terms of the settlement.

2. The liability of the other joint tortfeasors to the plaintiff is reduced by the amount received by the plaintiff from the released tortfeasor, or by the proportion of the damage for which the released tortfeasor would have been responsible, depending on the specific legislation or interpretation in the jurisdiction and the terms of the settlement.

3. The released tortfeasor may or may not be protected from claims for contribution from the other tortfeasors, depending on the terms of the release or specific statutory provisions. Often, settlements explicitly include a clause where the plaintiff undertakes to indemnify the settling tortfeasor against any contribution claims from non-settling tortfeasors.

The exact legal effect can depend on whether the release is a simple release or a release with specific terms, and the applicable statutory provisions governing joint tortfeasors and contribution.

In India, the courts generally lean towards the position that a release of one joint tortfeasor does not automatically discharge the others, especially if it is not a formal release under seal (historically significant) or if the clear intention was only to release that specific individual. The modern principle of apportionment of damages and contribution also supports the idea that the remaining tortfeasors should only be liable for their share or the balance after accounting for the settlement.

Answer: